scholarly journals COMPARISON OF ALVARADO SCORE AND RIPASA SCORE IN THE ACCURATE DIAGNOSIS OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS IN COMBINED MILITARY HOSPITAL RAWALPINDI

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. 1519-23
Author(s):  
Muhammad Majid ◽  
Rasikh Maqsood ◽  
Muhammad Ali ◽  
Muhammad Ayub Ashraf Malhi ◽  
Zaki Hussain ◽  
...  

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado score and the RIPASA score for acute appendicitis using histopathology as a gold standard. Study Design: Cross sectional validation study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Mar to Sep 2018. Methodology: A total number of 270 patients were included in the study presenting with pain right iliac fossa to the Accident and Emergency department. Surgeons and Seniors Residents in Surgery on call in the Accident and Emergency Department. Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, scored the patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis with Alvarado Score and RIPASA score simultaneously. After appendectomy of these patients, the removed appendix was sent for histopathology to confirm whether it was normal or inflamed. A 2x2 table was used for calculating sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the RIPASA score and Alvarado Score. The two scoring systems were then compared for diagnostic accuracy. Results: In our study, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score and Alvarado score for diagnosing acute appendicitis were 92.1%, 62.1%, 95.2%, 48.6%, 88.9% and 72.6%, 68.9%, 95.1%, 23.2%, 72.2% respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score was more than that of Alvarado score in diagnosing acute appendicitis.

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 796
Author(s):  
Vamsavardhan Pasumarthi ◽  
C. P. Madhu

Background: The RIPASA Score is a new diagnostic scoring system developed for the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis which showed higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy compared to ALVARADO Score, particularly when applied to Asian population. Not many studies have been conducted to compare RIPASA and ALVARADO scoring systems. Hence, author want to compare prospectively Alvarado and RIPASA score by applying them to the patients attending the hospital with right iliac fossa pain that could probably be acute appendicitis.Methods: A prospective analysis of 116 cases admitted with RIF pain during a 2 years period was performed. Patients between 15-60 years were scored as per Alvarado and RIPASA scoring system. Histopathological reports of the cases were collected and compared with the scores. ROC curve area analysis was performed to examine diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA and ALVARADO scores.Results: The sensitivity of ALVARADO score is estimated to be 52.08 for a cut off of 6. The specificity is 80%, positive predictive value is 92.59, negative predictive value is 25.81. The Diagnostic accuracy of ALVARADO scoring is found to be 56.9. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values of RIPASA scoring system are 75%, 65%, 91.14%, 35.14%. The diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score is 73.28.Conclusions: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between ALVARADO and RIPASA scoring system is significant indicating that the RIPASA score is a much better diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. When the ROC curve was observed the area under the curve is high for RIPASA scoring system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 740
Author(s):  
Suraj S. Kagwad ◽  
P. Karuppasamy

Background: Acute appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain and can be difficult to diagnose, especially during its early stages.  The diagnosis of acute appendicitis is based on clinical history, examination combined with investigations. The purpose of this study is to compare between the RIPASA score and Alvarado score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The aim of the present study was to compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado and RIPASA score.Methods: The cases for the study will be sourced from cases admitted in SVMCH and RC, Puducherry during the period of November 2016 to June 2018.Results: Out of the 144 patients in our study 133 patients were diagnosed with acute appendicitis as per HPE report.As per our study, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of RIPASA and Alvarado scoring system is 96.2%, 57.1%, 97.7% and 44.4%; 81.9%,85.7%, 95.1% and 20%  respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score is 94.3 as compared to 82.1 of Alvarado score.Conclusions: The RIPASA scoring system is a promising and has good sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy when compared to Alvarado scoring for Asian Population.RIPASA scoring system is an easy and reliable, cost effective diagnostic tool which reduce negative appendicectomy rates and the expensive radiological investigations for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 3937
Author(s):  
Waleed Yusif El Sherpiny

Background: Various diagnostic criteria have been described for diagnosing acute appendicitis. Of these, Alvarado score has been the most commonly used. The RIPASA score is a new diagnostic scoring system developed for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and showed higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy as compared to Alvarado score. we want to compare prospectively Alvarado and RIPASA score by applying them to patients attending emergency department complaining of right iliac fossa pain that could probably be acute appendicitis.Methods: Patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were classified according to both Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems before undergoing surgery. Histopathological examination of the removed appendix was taken as the gold standard for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Results: Among (90%) patients had histologically confirmed appendicitis. With the cut-off value greater than 7.5 for RIPASA score; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy  were 88.2%, 14.5%, 73.1%, 32%,and 68% respectively. With the cut-off value greater than 7 for Alvarado score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 51.2%, 80 %, 91 %, 29%, and 57%, respectively. 87.5% of patients were correctly stratified by RIPASA under higher probability group while only 45% were classified by Alvarado as high probability.Conclusions: RIPASA scoring system showed high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in comparison to Alvarado scoring system. So, it can be applied   for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.


2021 ◽  
pp. 25-28
Author(s):  
M. Vijaya Kumar ◽  
Manasa Manasa

Acute appendicitis is the most common condition encountered in the Emergency department .Alvarado and Modied Alvarado scores are the most commonly used scoring system used for diagnosing acute appendicitis.,but its performance has been found to be poor in certain population . Hence our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA and ALVARADO Scoring system and study and compare sensitivity, specicity and predictive values of these scoring systems. The study was conducted in Government district hospital Nandyal . We enrolled 176 patients who presented with RIF pain . Both RIPASA and ALVARADO were applied to them. Final diagnosis was conrmed either by CT scan, intra operative nding or post operative HPE report. Sensitivity,specicity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy was calculated both for RIPASA and ALVARADO. It was found that sensitivity and specicity of the RIPASA score in our study are 98.7% and 83.3%, respectively. PPV and NPV were 98.1% and 88.2% and sensitivity and specicity of the Alvardo score in our study are 94.3% and 83.3%, respectively. PPV and NPV were 98% and 62.5%.Diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score and Alvarado score are 97% and 93% respectively. RIPASA is a more specic and accurate scoring system in our local population when compared to ALVARADO . It reduces the number of missed appendicitis cases and also convincingly lters out the group of patients that would need a CT scan for diagnosis (score 5-7.5 ) BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly dealt surgical emergencies, with a lifetime prevalence rate of approximately 1 one in seven. The incidence is 1.5–1.9 per 1,000 in the male and female population, and is approximately 1.4 times greater in men than in women. Despite being a common problem, it remains a difcult diagnosis to establish, particularly among the young, the elderly and females of reproductive age, where a host of other genitourinary and gynaecological inammatory conditions can present with signs and symptoms that are 2 similar to those of acute appendicitis. A delay in performing an appendectomy in order to improve its diagnostic accuracy increases the risk of appendicular perforation and peritonitis, which in turn increases morbidity and mortality. A variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory ndings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of Acute Appendicitis and the possible subsequent management pathway. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and ALVARADO score are new diagnostic scoring systems developed for the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis and has been shown to have signicantly higher sensitivity, specicity and diagnostic accuracy. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES PRIMARY OBJECT 1. To compare RIPASA Scoring system and ALVARADO Scoring system in terms of diagnostic accuracy in Acute Appendicitis. 2. To study and compare sensitivity, specicity and predictive values of above scoring systems. SECONDARY OBJECT 1. To study the rate of negative appendicectomy based on above scoring systems. CONCLUSION: The RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with high sensitivity and specicity for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The 14 clinical parameters are all present in a good clinical history and examination and can be easily and quickly applied. Therefore, a decision on the management can be made early. Although the RIPASA score was developed for the local population of Brunei, we believe that it should be applicable to other regions. The RIPASA score presents greater Diagnostic accuracy and Sensitivity and equal specicity as a diagnostic test compared to the Alvarado score and is helpful in making appropriate therapeutic decisions. In hospitals like ours, the diagnosis of AA relies greatly on the clinical evaluation performed by surgeons. An adequate clinical scoring system would avoid diagnostic errors, maintaining a satisfactory low rate of negative appendectomies by adequate patient stratication, while limiting patient exposure to ionizing radiation, since 21 there is an increased risk of developing cancer with computed tomography, particularly for the paediatric age group.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suman Baral ◽  
Neeraj Thapa ◽  
Raj Kumar Chhetri ◽  
Rupesh Sharma

Introduction: Various diagnostic criteria have been described for acute appendicitis. For decades the most commonly used one has been Alvarado score. RIPASA scoring system has also been developed for Asian population which has shown highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to compare these two diagnostic criteria in Nepalese population attending a tertiary center. Methods: Patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were classified according to both Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems before undergoing surgery. Histopathological examination was taken as the gold standard for diagnosis. Statistical analysis was done using McNemar's test as applicable. Results: Ninety nine (90 %) patients had histologically confirmed appendicitis. With the cut-off value greater than 7.5 for RIPASA score; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 94.5%, 27.27 %, 92.16 %, 37.5 %, 88.18% and 7.84% respectively. With the cut-off value greater than 7 for Alvarado score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 71.72%, 72.73 %, 95.95 %, 22.22%, 71.82 %, and 4.05 % respectively. 94.5% of patients were correctly stratified by RIPASA under higher probability group while only 71.8 % were classified by Alvarado (p value= 0.0001). Conclusion: RIPASA scoring system showed high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in comparison to Alvarado scoring system. So, this method can be applied in Nepalese setting for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-114
Author(s):  
Uttam Pachya ◽  
Sita Ram Shrestha ◽  
Yagya Raj Pokharel ◽  
Ambika Thapa

Background: Acute Appendicitis is a clinical diagnosis with atypical presentation in young, elderly, females, genitourinary and gynecological conditions. Delayed appendectomy increases the risk of appendicular perforation, sepsis morbidity and mortality. Literature reports as high as 20-40% negative appendectomy. Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha score has come with higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy than Alvarado score in Asian population. This study aims to compare RIPASA and Alvarado score for diagnostic accuracy.Methods: Appendectomy patients at Patan Hospital from April to September 2014 were compared on raja isteri pengiran anak saleha (cut-off value 7.5 out of 15) and Alvarado score (cut-off value 7 out of 10). Final diagnosis was histopathology based. Microsoft Excel and SPSS 17 were used for analysing sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of both scores. The study included patients who underwent appendectomy with histopathology report and excluded those with conservative management, generalized peritonitis, appendicular lump and abscess.Results: There were 88 appendectomy patients with median age 26 (18.25, 35) years, and male 52 (59.1%). Negative appendectomy was 10 (11.36%). Sensitivity and specificity of Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha 98.71% and 80.00% respectively, and for Alvarado 52.56% and 70%.The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha score had statistically significant sensitivity (p=0.000). Positive Predictive value, Negative Predictive Value and diagnostic accuracy were 97.46%, 88.89% and 96.6% for RIPASA and 93.18%, 15.19% and 54.4% for Alvarado respectively.Conclusions: The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha score had better diagnostic accuracy compared to Alvarado score for diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.Keywords: Acute appendicitis; alvarado score; RIPASA score


Author(s):  
S. Keerthana ◽  
. Vignaradj

Background: Acute appendicitis can be diagnosed much accurately by using Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasound together in the clinical setting. Objectives: Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasonographic findings in acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 200 patients of age group ranging from 4-65 years, both male and female, who visited the tertiary health care center with clinical features suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomly selected. Data from the patients regarding their Modified Alvarado score, ultrasonographic findings and histopathological reports were collected for the study. Statistical analysis was performed for the results of both Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasonographic findings in contrast to the pathology reports.  Results: The study included 200 patients, with maximum incidence of acute appendicitis seen in males (70.5%) and among 21-30 age groups (40.5%). The sensitivity, specificity of Modified Alvarado Score was 89.47% and 73.33%, with Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value and diagnostic accuracy being 40%, 73.33% and 45% respectively. Ultrasonography revealed 89.58% sensitivity, 15.62 % specificity, Positive predictive value and NPV were 75.88% and 50%, and diagnostic accuracy was 72%. The negative appendectomies rates accounted to 15%. Conclusion: It is advised that both Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasound can be used to together to diagnose acute appendicitis. This can be useful in decreasing the negative appendectomies and hence reduce the morbidity and mortality.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 935
Author(s):  
Jeevan G. Sanjive ◽  
Ravi H. Ramaiah

Background: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies. A delay in performing an appendicectomy in order to improve the diagnostic accuracy increases the risk of appendicular perforation and sepsis. We prospectively compared and validated RIPASA to Alvarado scoring system when applied to an Indian population.Methods: This study included all the patients presented in General Surgery and The Emergency Department of Manipal Hospital, Bangalore diagnosed to have acute appendicitis from October 2014 to March 2016. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendicectomy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the RIPASA and Alvarado scoring system were derived using SPSS statistical software.Results: 75 patients were included in the study. Using the RIPASA scoring system, 97.1% of patients who actually had acute appendicitis were correctly diagnosed, compared to only 52.85% when using the Alvarado scoring system. The sensitivity and the specificity of the RIPASA scoring system is 97.14% and 60% respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA scoring system is 94.67% and that of Alvarado scoring system is 52%. The results indicate that the RIPASA scoring system is a better diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (p<0.001).Conclusions: It is observed that the RIPASA scoring system has higher sensitivity and higher specificity compared to Alvarado scoring. It also has higher diagnostic accuracy and consequently, it has low negative appendicectomy rate. It can be concluded that the RIPASA scoring can be effectively conducted for the better evaluation of acute appendicitis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahir Iqbal ◽  
Muhammad Usman Shahid ◽  
Ishfaq Ahmad Shad ◽  
Shahzad Karim Bhatti ◽  
Syed Amir Gilani ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A common surgical emergency is acute appendicitis. Various diagnostic tools are available to diagnosis acute appendicitis. Radiological investigations play an important role in making accurate and early diagnosis and thus preventing morbidity associated with the disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of gray scale ultrasonography versus color Doppler in suspected cases of acute appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried in the department of Radiology of Mayo Hospital, Lahore. A total of 75 patients were enrolled of age 18-40 years, both genders who were suspected cases of acute appendicitis. All patients underwent baseline investigations along with gray scale ultrasonography and color Doppler. All patients were subjected to surgery to confirm the diagnosis and findings were subjected to statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 23.25 ±10.55 and mean transverse diameter of appendix was 8.37 ±3.39. There were 62.7% males and 37.3%females. Findings of gray scale ultrasonography and color Doppler were then correlated with surgical findings to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of these modalities. The results revealed that gray scale ultrasonography sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy was 92.7%, 94.32%, 95%, 91.4% and 93.3% respectively, whereas color Doppler had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 97.7%, 93.9%, 95.3%, 97% and 96% respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of both modalities together was 98.6%. CONCLUSION: Color Doppler has better diagnostic accuracy than gray scale ultrasonography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis and the combination of both modalities yields diagnostic accuracy that is similar to gold standard.


2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 132-138
Author(s):  
MUHAMMAD ATIF ◽  
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ◽  
MUHAMMAD JAVAD YOUSAF ◽  
Khalid Buland

Objective: To compare the accuracy of Upper lip bite test with modified Mallampati classification for predicting the difficultlaryngoscopic intubation. Study Design: Cross sectional Study. Place and duration of study: The study was carried out at Department ofAnaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain management, Combined Military hospital, Rawalpindi from September 2008 to August 2009.Patients and Methods: Four hundred patients undergoing elective surgery meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled afterwritten informed consent. The airways of the patients were evaluated by using the modified Mallampati classification (MMP) and theUpper lip bite test (ULBT). MMP class 3 or 4 and ULBT class 3 were considered as indicators of difficult intubation. The laryngeal view wasgraded by Cormack and Lehane classification (Gold standard). Grade 1 or 2 was considered to represent easy intubation and grade 3 or 4to represent difficult intubation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy werecalculated for both the tests separately by using the 2×2 table. Results: ULBT had a higher accuracy of 94%, specificity of 99.2% andpositive predictive value 70% compared to MMP accuracy of 82.7%, specificity of 84.4% and positive predictive value of 22.7%.Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of the Upper lip bite test was more than the modified Mallampati classification. We suggest that itbe compared with the other prevailing tests as well which are often used to assess difficult intubations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document